GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 39.7m
35
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Sliced through defensive coverages with relentless downhill attacks, creating a massive surge in scoring efficiency. His two-way stamina was the defining trait of the night, as he paired his offensive explosion with highly disruptive perimeter defense (+5.6 Def) over nearly 40 minutes.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 39.7m -19.4
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Quentin Grimes 38.0m
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.6

Empty perimeter possessions severely damaged his offensive efficiency and allowed defenders to sag into the paint. A complete absence of loose-ball recoveries or secondary effort (+0.0 Hustle) over 38 minutes dragged his overall impact deeply into the red despite decent passing.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +7.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 38.0m -18.8
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 35.5m
6
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Anchored the interior with phenomenal rim protection and switchability (+9.3 Def) that consistently disrupted opponent drives. His relentless activity on the glass and loose balls (+4.5 Hustle) perfectly complemented his reliable, low-usage offensive role.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.3
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 35.5m -17.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 25.2m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Settling for outside jumpers completely neutralized his typical dominant interior gravity and cratered his scoring output. Even though he remained a formidable deterrent in the paint (+5.1 Def), the inefficient offensive possessions crippled his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 25.2m -12.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S VJ Edgecombe 23.9m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

A dip in scoring volume and efficiency limited his usual offensive punch, forcing him to find other ways to contribute. He leaned heavily into point-of-attack disruption (+6.0 Def), but it wasn't quite enough to overcome the stalled offensive possessions during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 23.9m -11.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Flashed improved offensive decision-making to bump his scoring above his recent baseline. Despite showing excellent defensive instincts (+4.4 Def) on the wing, a lack of rebounding and loose-ball recoveries (+0.8 Hustle) prevented him from achieving a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 21.8m -10.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jared McCain 21.1m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Struggled to find the range from beyond the arc, which neutralized his primary offensive weapon and clogged spacing. Poor defensive positioning (-0.1 Def) made him a target on switches, leading to a severely negative overall footprint despite decent secondary effort.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 21.1m -10.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Failed to generate any interior pressure, completely disappearing from the offensive stat sheet. While he held his ground defensively in the paint (+3.0 Def), the lack of offensive rebounding and finishing made his stint a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.7%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 16.6m -8.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Provided a brief spark of scoring efficiency by capitalizing on quick cuts to the basket. However, his limited minutes and inability to generate significant defensive stops (+1.3 Def) kept his overall impact slightly below the break-even point.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 12.3m -6.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Adem Bona 6.0m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Made the most of a very short rotational stint by playing within his limits and avoiding costly mistakes. His physical presence provided just enough defensive resistance (+1.7 Def) to keep his brief minutes in the positive.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 6.0m -2.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 23.2m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

A sharp regression in scoring volume from his previous outburst limited his ceiling, though his shot selection remained solid. Consistent secondary effort (+2.7 Hustle) and timely cuts helped stabilize his value, ensuring his floor minutes remained a net positive for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 23.2m -11.4
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Will Richard 20.4m
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Maintained his recent efficiency with perfect shot selection, but a low usage rate capped his offensive ceiling. Strong defensive rotations (+5.3 Def) kept him in the black, though his overall footprint was minimal during his 20 minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 20.4m -10.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A brutal perimeter shooting slump cratered his offensive value, snapping a hot streak of highly efficient scoring. He attempted to compensate with relentless on-ball pressure (+4.1 Def), but the empty possessions from beyond the arc ultimately sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -49.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 19.7m -9.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Al Horford 17.9m
3
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

Bricklaying from the perimeter severely hampered his offensive gravity and dragged down his baseline value. However, elite rim protection and defensive positioning (+7.9 Def) entirely salvaged his night, keeping his overall impact slightly positive despite the shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.9
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 17.9m -8.8
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

An unusually brief and disjointed stint disrupted his rhythm, leading to a sharp drop-off from his recent scoring averages. While he still provided positive resistance in the paint (+2.1 Def), his inability to generate offensive flow dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 9.4m -4.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Buddy Hield 25.5m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

Completely flipped the script from a brutal five-game slump by finding clean release valves in transition. His massive overall rating was driven by elite secondary effort (+5.2 Hustle) and surprisingly disruptive passing lane defense (+7.2 Def) that fueled fast-break opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 25.5m -12.5
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Quinten Post 25.5m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Capitalized on defensive mismatches in the post to boost his scoring efficiency above his recent baseline. While his offensive execution was crisp, sluggish pick-and-roll coverage (+0.6 Def) allowed opponents to claw back much of the value he generated.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 25.5m -12.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 24.0m
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.6

Executed brilliantly within the flow of the offense, taking advantage of defensive lapses to generate high-quality looks. His surging impact score was anchored by smart positional defense (+4.4 Def) and a knack for securing loose balls (+3.5 Hustle) to extend possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 24.0m -11.8
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.6

Broke out of a recent shooting funk by attacking the interior instead of settling for perimeter looks. His two-way energy was the catalyst for his high rating, combining aggressive point-of-attack defense (+3.9 Def) with constant motion off the ball (+4.4 Hustle).

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 21.1m -10.4
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.6

Forced too many contested looks in the half-court, leading to inefficient scoring that stalled offensive momentum. A distinct lack of secondary effort plays (+0.2 Hustle) compounded the damage from his missed shots, resulting in a heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 20.1m -9.9
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Seth Curry 14.2m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to register a single basket after a highly efficient previous outing. Without his floor-spacing gravity to bend the defense, his minutes became a noticeable drag on the team's overall offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 14.2m -6.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 11.7m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

A sudden disappearance of offensive volume snapped his streak of highly efficient scoring performances. Compounding the quiet offensive night was a tendency to get lost on defensive switches (-1.5 Def), which allowed opponents to exploit his side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +68.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 11.7m -5.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Relegated to extreme situational duty, preventing any meaningful offensive contribution or rhythm. He did manage to flash some solid rim deterrence (+3.0 Def) in his brief window, keeping his net impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 4.1m -2.1
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely broke a sweat during a fleeting rotational cameo that offered no time to establish rhythm. The complete lack of offensive involvement erased his usually highly efficient scoring baseline, leaving a negligible dent in the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.4m -1.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0